Is the 1st son the only one who can be a Junior?

I posted this in the boys’ forum, but I’d like to see some more responses.

[name]Do[/name] you think [name]Junior[/name] is reserved for the first son? What if you didn’t use it for your first and still would like to have a junior? Would it be weird to use it for your second son? Or third or fourth or twelfth?!

Not at all, any son named after his father could be a junior. I say go for it if you want to!

No, the way the son is known as a junior is if he has all three names (first middle and last) the same as the person he is being named after.

For example, if [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] had a son named [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] then the son would be junior or the second.

If [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] had a son named [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Asher[/name] [name]Greene[/name] then the son would not be a junior.

This works the same for grandparents, uncles, etc.

I just noticed you posted for other as well third fourth etc.

It’s the same for the rest. If [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] had his son [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] then his son had a son and named him [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] he’d be the third. Children who are named after two other people in their family of the same name also go by [name]Trey[/name] [name]Trey[/name] meaning three.

but if [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name]'s son [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Thomas[/name] [name]Greene[/name] decides to go and name his son [name]Daniel[/name] [name]Asher[/name] [name]Greene[/name] then he is not a third, fourth, whatever the case may be.

I dont see a problem with it. [name]Ive[/name] heard of people doing it before.

I think naming a first son after the father gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that it was a relatively strong and/or long-term wish for the father to pass down his name. When it occurs on a later-born son, it gives the impression that it was a less intense wish and less passionate decision… for example, like the parents realized that it might be a nice idea and decided to use the name. I think it is perfectly fine either way. My only concern is whether the mother feels pressured to go along with it… and on a later-born son, that seems less likely to have occurred.

Everwaiting, that’s exactly the situation! My husband has always liked the idea, but it wasn’t a big deal to him and he never pushed for it. I’ve been thinking that I do like the idea of it. We only have one son now, but if we ever have a fourth (I know, that’s a long way away!), we would like to call him [name]Hart[/name]. None of the names [name]Hart[/name] can be short for have really stood out to us. When i realized that it could be a nickname for [name]Richard[/name], well, I started thinking about it. My husband is [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name]. If we named him this, we wouldn’t have to pick a longer version of [name]Hart[/name] that we don’t really like, and he could go by that exclusively. And I know my husband would be thrilled to pass down his name. It would also give the slight possibility of a [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] III as a grandson, and I have always loved the nickname [name]Tripp[/name] for a third!

I am sort of thinking that if we are going to do it, we should do it for the second son instead of waiting. But we have had our next name picked out for a long time and i don’t want to say goodbye to it.

I’m thinking we would not have more than 4 sons, I mean, it’s possible, but fairly unlikely. My husband is the youngest child. I think it might actually be really fitting for the youngest son to be named after him, since they would have that in common.

Is it actually acceptable to do this? What do The [name]Powers[/name] That Be have to say about it? Oh… And i just have to ask, would it be completely ridiculous to add a second middle name, since all our other children will have them? I guess then he would just be [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] ____, and not [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name], [name]Junior[/name]. But maybe that would be ok?

[name]Hi[/name] [name]Lyndsay[/name],

It’s perfectly acceptable for a junior to be a later-born son. While, there are more first-born sons who are juniors, many are later born. On your other thread (in the Boys forum), I made note of the statistics from my large family tree database. Out of 379 juniors, 258 were first-born sons and 121 were later-born sons.

I believe if the son has an additional name added - so that it is not identical to the father’s - then he is not technically a junior in the traditional sense. Perhaps you could consider the title of [name]Junior[/name] to take the place of an additional name. It seems to me that the “junior” son would feel honored and in no way cheated to have three names like his father, plus the title of junior. Of course, go with whatever feels right to you and your husband. Maybe someone else will chime in with their experience or thoughts about it.

Thank you so much for checking the stats! That makes me feel more comfortable with the idea, since a whole lot of people have done it! I’ll comment further about that on the other thread.

I think you’re right about him feeling honored and not minding having a different sort of name from his siblings. And yeah, [name]Junior[/name] can count as the 4th name, it will always be attached to his name, after all. Yeah! I’m feeling pretty good about this. I don’t want to wait several years to use it… I think when we actually get pregnant, we might just have to take the three names to the hospital and see what fits!

I would personally only do it for the first son. I would worry about the underlying message that you might unintentionally be communicating to the first son if you chose to skip him. It’s like, “Well, honey, your father didn’t really want to give you his name all that much, but when little [name]Junior[/name] came along, he just couldn’t resist!” I know a couple who is about to have triplets and they were going to make one a junior, but then decided that it wouldn’t really be fair to the others, and I agreed with their decision.
I only think this applies to actual juniors w/ first, middle, last names the same. I think it’s fine to throw in your husband’s first or middle wherever you want.

My dad is a junior, and he’s my grandparents’ fourth son :slight_smile: .

My husband’s paternal grandmother had a daughter and 5 sons. His grandfather was a [name]Jr[/name]., and the second of the 5 boys was the III.

Of the 5 boys, 4 had sons, and every one gave his name to his firstborn son. My husband, the elder of two brothers, is a [name]Jr[/name].

Our first son is [name]Peter[/name] [name]Sidney[/name] III, and I love his name :slight_smile: He has a second cousin who is a V.

I don’t see any problem with using [name]Jr[/name]. at any time.

There are no rules on names in the US, so whatever you write down on your son’s birth certificate is his name. I am not sure anyone could stop you from naming him [name]John[/name] F [name]Kennedy[/name] XXIII if you were set on it. Traditionally, only a son who has the same name as his father in the same order is a [name]Jr[/name]. The [name]Jr[/name]. distinguishes the two. If the father is [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and the son is [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] [name]Michael[/name] [name]Smith[/name], the second middle name distinguishes the son from the father, and there’s no need for a suffix. If the father’s name is [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] [name]Smith[/name] and the son’s name is [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] [name]Smith[/name], and you don’t put [name]Jr[/name]. on the birth certificate, [name]Jr[/name]. is not part of his legal name. They can use Sr. and [name]Jr[/name]. to distinguish themselves–just like the father of a [name]Jr[/name]. with that in his legal name may use Sr., though it isn’t in his legal name–but legally, his name is exactly the same as his father’s. (Not entirely a disadvantage–my husband says that sometimes it can be difficult to deal with a suffix on standardized forms.) Elsewhere I have heard it asked what happens when the Sr. dies–and if the name is on his birth certificate, your son will be a [name]Jr[/name]. for the rest of his life. But if not, he could drop it after his father’s death (or not) and call himself Sr. if he passed the name on again. Another point of interest–some people use a comma before a [name]Jr[/name]., and some do not; my husband does not.

For the record, my husband loves his name and wouldn’t want any other. He does not view himself as an extension of his father, nor does his father view him that way. He is a happy, well-adjusted adult and perfectly capable of surviving on his own (although FIL tries to do more for us than he should, but that’s not so rare). We live next door to my in-laws. Your son should never attempt to change his address from yours at the post office; it will never be straightened out. He should just change his address with any companies he does business with. Your DH will probably need to write Sr. on anything, and at every doctor’s appointment you’ll need to make sure the paperwork is right, among other times. Whenever you get a phone call for [name]Christopher[/name] you’ll have to ask which one. But we also haven’t been able to get a nickname to stick for [name]Peter[/name] III.

I have zero naming regret.

It is weird to call any human being [name]Junior[/name].

I’ve been meaning to comment on this but haven’t had the chance. I think that any son can be a [name]Jr[/name]. not just the first. For the most part we don’t do Jrs in my family since I’m Jewish and we don’t name for the living, but I think it’s a wonderful tradition. It’s done a bit on my dad’s side, because his step-Dad wasn’t Jewish. My grandfather (or step-grandfather, if you will) had a son named [name]Paul[/name] [name]Jr[/name]. who was the first son. This [name]Paul[/name] has three sons, the middle of which is named [name]Paul[/name]. The first is named [name]Steven[/name] after his grandfather, the second is [name]Paul[/name] III (known as [name]Will[/name], b.c his middle name is [name]William[/name]), the third is [name]Brian[/name]. There happens to be another [name]Paul[/name] [name]William[/name] in the family (a cousin, named for my grandfather) who goes by [name]Liam[/name]. I don’t think [name]Steven[/name] or [name]Brian[/name] feel shortchanged for not being named after their dad and [name]Will[/name] is a very well adjusted young man. I don’t think he has any complexes related to being a [name]Jr[/name]/III nor do I think he is any closer with his father than his two brothers.

In a similar situation one of my best friends is [name]Junior[/name]. His name is [name]Andrew[/name] and he is the youngest son in his family. He has two older brothers and a sister. Upon knowing that this was their last child, his parents decided to name him after his father. We’ve discussed his name a number of times (because he knows I’m a total name nerd) and though it’s somewhat confusing, as others have pointed out, to have the same name as his father, he has never regretted sharing his name with his Dad. His father goes by [name]Andrew[/name] or [name]Andy[/name] and growing up/with family he went by AJ (middle name is [name]James[/name]) and now he mostly goes by [name]Andrew[/name]. He’s said that his brothers have never expressed any wish to have been named after their father and it’s just something that’s been simply accepted by his family.

So, after all that has been said, once again, I think it’s completely fine to name your second, third, fourth, or tenth son after your husband. I think [name]Hart[/name] is a very sweet nickname and [name]Christopher[/name] [name]Richard[/name] nn [name]Hart[/name] is brilliant. You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into your older sons name and all the names on your list, so I don’t think your son or any future sons would feel shortchanged for not being named after their Dad. That’s just my opinion though, you also have to go with your heart and do what you feel is best for your kids! Good luck :slight_smile:

My first impulse is to say only the first son should be named after his father, and you should just name your son [name]Richard[/name] as a first name with a different middle name but the more I think about it, it really isn’t that weird.

Looking at history, it was done all the time. [name]King[/name] [name]Henry[/name] VIII was named after his father [name]Henry[/name] VII, but he had an older brother named [name]Arthur[/name]. [name]Henry[/name] II also did this and named his first son [name]William[/name], and his second son [name]Henry[/name], known as [name]Henry[/name] the [name]Young[/name] [name]King[/name] ([name]William[/name] died as a toddler). Sorry, I’m such a history nerd!

But I guess the bottom line is: if it’s acceptable for royalty, who observe protocol more than anyone, it should be acceptable for you as well. :slight_smile:

Really I don’t think so, I have an uncle who was named after my grandfather and he goes by [name]Junior[/name]. I’ve never ever ever heard him called [name]Lloyd[/name] in all of my 20 years. In fact, when I was little I really thought his name was [name]Junior[/name] LOL.

[name]Junior[/name] is just a nick name and when they write their names on cheques or when they go to work they have a solid name to fall back on :slight_smile: